I think I created a mini-firestorm with my prior note. Please allow me this lengthy clarification:
1) There may be some who are taking joy in all this. I truly am not. If Flood is exonerated, I will be very happy to eat crow on this board.
2) I said that if Flood is found to have violated university policy, then he must be suspended. My use of the term "must" was intended to be figurative, not literal. As in "Flood must start Player X" or "Recruit Y is a must get". I did not mean to imply that there is a university mandated policy for suspension. I am sure there is not.
3) I am very sympathetic to the argument that we should refrain from judgement until this is adjudicated by the university, and that there is no purpose to prejudging. My only rebuttal is that there is no real purpose to most of what we do on this board. And a lot of what we do is exactly this: we formulate opinions based on incomplete information.
4) And based on the incomplete information with which we have been provided, I conclude the following:
- It is highly unlikely that Flood violated NCAA regulations. (GOOD!)
- However, it is highly likely that he violated University policy (not so good).
5) IF the above if proven to be true, I continue to believe that Flood "must" face a minimum one game suspension. Here is why:
- The press will have a field day if Flood is found guilty and left unpunished. You may not care. I do. As the adage goes, you don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
- Conversely, if the school does suspend Flood for a game, this could actually be spun into a positive. As in "There is no NCAA violation and no reportable wrongdoing. However, we at Rutgers hold ourselves to our own standards..."
- If under the above scenario Flood is not suspended, how does he face his team? He imposes discipline, and properly so, when players break his rules. What will they think if their coach breaks the rules with impunity? Do as I say, not as I do? I know of no better way to lose the respect of one's underlings.
- You may think this was a meaningless technical violation. I do not. My guess is that the rule was enacted by RU in response to the acknowledged ambiguity in the NCAA rule. RU said let's get rid of the gray, let's make it black and white -- just don't do it! And Flood just did it (assuming that he in fact did). That tends to piss people off.
- Lastly, the inescapable conclusion is that by his actions, Flood did damage to the RU athletic brand. I want to be very clear on this. FLOOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. The whistleblower is not responsible. The press is not responsible. Flood is responsible. He preaches accountability, and must be held accountable.
That's it for me. Thanks for your comments and for reading this to the end.
